Exclusive: Testing Intel's Unreleased Core i9-9900KS

By Paul Alcorn
last updated

We take Intel's unreleased Special Edition Core i9-9900KS for a benchmarking spin.

Core i9-9900KS Final Fantasy XV and Grand Theft Auto V

Swipe to scroll horizontally
MemoryChart Entry
DDR4-2666Core i9-9900KS CL, i9-9900K, 9900K @ 5.0 DDR4-2666, Ryzen 7 3700X, Ryzen 9 3900X
DDR4-3600Core i9-990KS @ 5.2, Core i9-9900K @ 5.0, Ryzen 9 3900X PBO, Ryzen 7 3700X PBO

Final Fantasy XV

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

We run this test with the standard quality preset to sidestep the impact of a bug that causes the game engine to render off-screen objects with the higher-resolution setting.

The Core i9-9900KS again takes the lead over both the stock and tuned -9900K with normalized memory settings. The Ryzen 3900X is more competitive in this title, essentially tying the stock Core -9900K, but the stock KS takes a 2.7 fps lead. That gap widens to 10.9 fps after tuning both processors.  

However, it is noteworthy that the out-of-the-box Ryzen 9 3900X offers a better 99th percentile frame time measurement than the stock KS. We also spot the overclocked -9900KS suffering from a few outliers that register as a higher 99.9th-percentile measurement. 

Grand Theft Auto V

Image 1 of 3
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Grand Theft Auto V favors Intel architectures and, more generally, multi-core designs with high clock rates. The Ryzen 9 3900X goes a long way to improving AMD's standing in this title, nearly matching the stock -9900K. Of course, Intel is eager to stave off that assault with its KS model. The KS lives up to its billing and offers a few extra frames over the tuned 3900X, but if you're not overclocking it might not be worth the extra cash for a relatively small gain. If overclocking is in your plans, the -9900KS is the clear winner. 


MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content

Paul Alcorn
Paul Alcorn
Deputy Managing Editor

Paul Alcorn is the Deputy Managing Editor for Tom's Hardware US. He writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage and enterprise hardware.

45 Comments Comment from the forums
  • mamasan2000
    AMD 3900X is not a 14nm CPU. Guess that is a typo, should be 7 nm.
    Reply
  • nitrium
    Yet another super underwhelming Intel release. I guess they'll up their game next gen, but at the price they're asking for it, it's at best "meh".
    Reply
  • Aspiring techie
    There's almost zero reason to buy this CPU if the rumored price is accurate. It's only for those who want the absolute best gaming experience. For almost every other usage case in the $500 price bracket, the 3900X is the clear winner.

    I still find it funny that AMD's 12 core CPU consumes less power than Intel's 8-core. My how the times have changed...
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    Aspiring techie said:
    There's almost zero reason to buy this CPU if the rumored price is accurate. It's only for those who want the absolute best gaming experience. For almost every other usage case in the $500 price bracket, the 3900X is the clear winner.

    I still find it funny that AMD's 12 core CPU consumes less power than Intel's 8-core. My how the times have changed...

    Considering the clock speed difference and that while its not quite 7nm it is still a smaller node than Intels 14nm its not surprising at all. If anything its to be expected. If Intel was using less power with a massive clock speed advantage on a larger process then something would be wrong.
    Reply
  • Aspiring techie
    jimmysmitty said:
    Considering the clock speed difference and that while its not quite 7nm it is still a smaller node than Intels 14nm its not surprising at all. If anything its to be expected. If Intel was using less power with a massive clock speed advantage on a larger process then something would be wrong.
    I totally agree. 7nm especially has been a huge advantage on that front. It's just that AMD CPUs have traditionally been power hogs while Intel has been fast and power efficient. I find it funny that the roles are somewhat reversed now.
    Reply
  • mitch074
    Aspiring techie said:
    I totally agree. 7nm especially has been a huge advantage on that front. It's just that AMD CPUs have traditionally been power hogs while Intel has been fast and power efficient. I find it funny that the roles are somewhat reversed now.
    "Power hog" is relative - at the time of the Athlon XP, the Pentium 4 had a secondary role as a room heater.
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    The advertised TDP is still a joke on these heaters...
    Reply
  • vinay2070
    9900K @5Ghz performs better than 9900KS @5GHz and costs lesser ? OMG! I understand there are bug fixes, but the cost increase for very little performance increase, that too at 5.2GHz OC is not worth it IMHO. For the price of this CPU, I can get the 3700X/Mobo/16GB ram and it does not make a lot of difference at 1440P anyway.
    Reply
  • unityole
    admin said:
    We take Intel's unreleased Special Edition Core i9-9900KS for a benchmarking spin.

    Exclusive: Testing Intel's Unreleased Core i9-9900KS : Read more

    is it possible to have Paul also test these new chips with mitigation on how they affect PCIe SSD performance?
    Reply
  • Bassben004
    mamasan2000 said:
    AMD 3900X is not a 14nm CPU. Guess that is a typo, should be 7 nm.
    Another typo is the 49.95 per thread price for the 3900X. 499/24=49.95?? The whole point of this was to try and act like Intel was releasing a competitive product, but they are just pulling the same stuff as when they did the 8086K. A special bin for <2% increase and more $$
    Reply